Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39051488›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2024

Ultrasonography for confirmation of gastric tube placement.

Yasushi Tsujimoto, Yuki Kataoka, Masahiro Banno, Keisuke Anan, Akihiro Shiroshita, Satoshi Jujo

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06821737 (Diagnostic Accuracy of Using Point-of-care Ultrasonography for Confirming Nasogastric Tube Placement), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06821737 active not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Diagnostic Accuracy of Using Point-of-care Ultrasonography for Confirming Nasogastric Tube Placement: a Multicentre Prospective Study

TypeobservationalSponsorPamela Youde Nethersole Eastern HospitalRan2025 to 2028Enrolled530ConditionsUltrasound, Nasogastric Tube, Nasogastric Tube PlacementArmsDiagnostic ultrasound, Diagnostic X-ray
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. [Treatment algorithm: Verification of nasogastric feeding tube position].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. [Thoughts and Prospects on Precision Control and Intelligent Positioning Robotic Systems Applied in Nasojejunal Feeding Tube Placement].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yasushi TsujimotoDepartment of Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine/School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan.
Yuki KataokaScientific Research WorkS Peer Support Group (SRWS-PSG), Osaka, Japan.
Masahiro BannoScientific Research WorkS Peer Support Group (SRWS-PSG), Osaka, Japan.
Keisuke AnanScientific Research WorkS Peer Support Group (SRWS-PSG), Osaka, Japan.
Akihiro ShiroshitaScientific Research WorkS Peer Support Group (SRWS-PSG), Osaka, Japan.
Satoshi JujoScientific Research WorkS Peer Support Group (SRWS-PSG), Osaka, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGastric tubes are commonly used for the administration of drugs and tube feeding for people who are unable to swallow. Feeding via a tube misplaced in the trachea can result in severe pneumonia. Therefore, the confirmation of tube placement in the stomach after tube insertion is important. Recent studies have reported that ultrasonography provides good diagnostic accuracy estimates in the confirmation of appropriate tube placement. Hence, ultrasound could provide a promising alternative to X-rays in the confirmation of tube placement, especially in settings where X-ray facilities are unavailable or difficult to access.

objectivesTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound alone or in combination with other methods for gastric tube placement confirmation in children and adults. SEARCH

methodsThis systematic review is an update of a previously published Cochrane review. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Library (2021, Issue 6), MEDLINE (to April 2023), Embase (to April 2023), five other databases (to July 2021), and reference lists of articles, and contacted study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of naso- and orogastric tube placement confirmed by ultrasound visualization using X-ray visualization as the reference standard. We included cross-sectional studies and case-control studies. We excluded case series or case reports. We excluded studies if X-ray visualization was not the reference standard or if the tube being placed was a gastrostomy or enteric tube. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the methodological quality and extracted data from each of the included studies. We contacted the authors of the included studies to obtain missing data. There were sparse data for specificity. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of only sensitivity using a univariate random-effects logistic regression model to combine data from studies that used the same method and echo window. MAIN

resultsWe identified 12 new studies in addition to 10 studies included in the earlier version of this review, totalling 1939 participants and 1944 tube insertions. Overall, we judged the risk of bias in the included studies as low or unclear. No study was at low risk of bias or low concern for applicability in every QUADAS-2 domain. There were limited data (152 participants) for misplacement detection (specificity) due to the low incidence of misplacement. The summary sensitivity of ultrasound on neck and abdomen echo windows were 0.96 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 0.98; moderate-certainty evidence) for air injection and 0.98 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00; moderate-certainty evidence) for saline injection. The summary sensitivity of ultrasound on abdomen echo window was 0.96 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.00; very low-certainty evidence) for air injection and 0.97 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.99; moderate-certainty evidence) for procedures without injection. The certainty of evidence for specificity across all methods was very low due to the very small sample size. For settings where X-ray was not readily available and participants underwent gastric tube insertion for drainage (8 studies, 552 participants), sensitivity estimates of ultrasound in combination with other confirmatory tests ranged from 0.86 to 0.98 and specificity estimates of 1.00 with wide CIs. For studies of ultrasound alone (9 studies, 782 participants), sensitivity estimates ranged from 0.77 to 0.98 and specificity estimates were 1.00 with wide CIs or not estimable due to no occurrence of misplacement. AUTHORS'

conclusionsOf 22 studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of gastric tube placement, few studies had a low risk of bias. Based on limited evidence, ultrasound does not have sufficient accuracy as a single test to confirm gastric tube placement. However, in settings where X-ray is not readily available, ultrasound may be useful to detect misplaced gastric tubes. Larger studies are needed to determine the possibility of adverse events when ultrasound is used to confirm tube placement.

Indexed as

Enteral NutritionIntubation, GastrointestinalStomachAdultBiasCase-Control StudiesChildHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID39051488
PMCPMC11270641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.